Hierarchical Co-Attention Selection Network for Interpretable Fake News Detection
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social media fake news has become a pervasive and problematic issue today with the development of the internet. Recent studies have utilized different artificial intelligence technologies to verify the truth of the news and provide explanations for the results, which have shown remarkable success in interpretable fake news detection. However, individuals’ judgments of news are usually hierarchical, prioritizing valuable words above essential sentences, which is neglected by existing fake news detection models. In this paper, we propose an interpretable novel neural network-based model, the hierarchical co-attention selection network (HCSN), to predict whether the source post is fake, as well as an explanation that emphasizes important comments and particular words. The key insight of the HCSN model is to incorporate the Gumbel–Max trick in the hierarchical co-attention selection mechanism that captures sentence-level and word-level information from the source post and comments following the sequence of words–sentences–words–event. In addition, HCSN enjoys the additional benefit of interpretability—it provides a conscious explanation of how it reaches certain results by selecting comments and highlighting words. According to the experiments conducted on real-world datasets, our model outperformed state-of-the-art methods and generated reasonable explanations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it